According to Daniel Hannan in 2016, from the article below :
It’s 24 June, 2025, and Britain is marking its annual Independence Day celebration. As the fireworks stream through the summer sky, still not quite dark, we wonder why it took us so long to leave. The years that followed the 2016 referendum didn’t just reinvigorate our economy, our democracy and our liberty. They improved relations with our neighbours.
To be fair to Lord Dan Han, he was not alone in failing to predict Covid and the Ukraine War
Nonetheless that is quite painful reading now. The problem for Brexiteers (and I am one) is that everything bad is now being successfully blamed on Brexit, just as everything bad was once adroitly blamed on the EU by eurosceptics
What goes around comes around
I repeat my prediction that we will be back in the SM/CU (or as good as) by the end of Starmer's first term
If that requires free movement again though that leaves the red wall back open to the Tories again
The trouble for the Tories is that it looks very much like we have Free Movement under them, anyway. Last year saw 500,000 net inward migrants, a huge historic record, and of course they have utterly failed to get a grip on the Dinghy People, and seem incapable of doing so (Braverman rightly tells the Tories in the Telegraph today that unless they do stop the boats their electoral defeat will be certain and grim)
Labour can say: what's the big difference then, at least in the Single Market we can all live and work in the EU again, and oldies can go retire to Spain, and we will have young Spaniards back working at Costa and Pret
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
In practice, we've currently got the worst of all worlds- more faff at the border, harder options for Brits going to Europe, but the total numbers (if that's your worry) are similar to higher, and the immigrants now coming are culturally and economically more different than before (if that's your worry).
Maybe it could have been different, but it's worked out as a definite self sabotage.
On immigration: I've heard the theory advanced here that the vote for Brexit was a cry from the voters to be heard on immigration. My view is that there was a lot more in the mix than that, but I agree that that was an element. "We don't want any more immigration - why aren't you listening to us?" And it is certainly true that if you want to control immigration, Brexit is a necessary condition. But it is not sufficient by itself: in order to control immigration, the British state has to want to control immigration, and it clearly does not, whatever certain politicians might favour. The British state still either believes, or is most responsive to belief, that keeping out immigrants is a bad thing morally (and probably also economically).
I think the tories will one day recover from this if only because there's always a place for a centre-right pro business party.
But it will only happen after a lengthy spell in the wilderness, where they will need to leave the nutters who helped ruin this country to wither.
And my emphasis is on centre-right and not far-right.
Italy now has a far right PM, if we had PR like Italy does no guarantee our next right of centre PM would not be Nationalist far right too rather than centre right.
According to Daniel Hannan in 2016, from the article below :
It’s 24 June, 2025, and Britain is marking its annual Independence Day celebration. As the fireworks stream through the summer sky, still not quite dark, we wonder why it took us so long to leave. The years that followed the 2016 referendum didn’t just reinvigorate our economy, our democracy and our liberty. They improved relations with our neighbours.
To be fair to Lord Dan Han, he was not alone in failing to predict Covid and the Ukraine War
Nonetheless that is quite painful reading now. The problem for Brexiteers (and I am one) is that everything bad is now being successfully blamed on Brexit, just as everything bad was once adroitly blamed on the EU by eurosceptics
What goes around comes around
I repeat my prediction that we will be back in the SM/CU (or as good as) by the end of Starmer's first term
If that requires free movement again though that leaves the red wall back open to the Tories again
The trouble for the Tories is that it looks very much like we have Free Movement under them, anyway. Last year saw 500,000 net inward migrants, a huge historic record, and of course they have utterly failed to get a grip on the Dinghy People, and seem incapable of doing so (Braverman rightly tells the Tories in the Telegraph today that unless they do stop the boats their electoral defeat will be certain and grim)
Labour can say: what's the big difference then, at least in the Single Market we can all live and work in the EU again, and oldies can go retire to Spain, and we will have young Spaniards back working at Costa and Pret
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Depends entirely on the economic situation under the likely Labour government and whether free movement of Romanians etc to the UK again reduces wages for the lower paid.
Governments normally lose elections, oppositions rarely win them. Even having changed to Starmer Labour was still well behind the Tories in summer 2021
Real wages increase under Labour; they stagnate under the Tories. Go figure.
UK gdp per capita was far higher in 1997 than 1979 and also amongst the highest in Western Europe compared to one of the lowest in Western Europe in 1979
If you look up differences in various measures of inequality in Britain and the US between 1979 and 1999, they're also quite staggering. There are also quite a number of economists who point out that those at the bottom saw their wages and living standards much more stagnant during this period in Britain and the US than in the period 1949-79.
An eloquent and brutal summation of the Plight of the Tories. I cannot argue with a word of it
The conclusion gives a taste:
"If the party carries on as it is for the next eighteen months, it will lose. It will lose badly. It could lose as many as 300 of its seats. It could slip behind the SNP, or at least be less than half of the opposition. The party should not be worrying about the Red Wall, it is already lost, but Romford, Tatton, and a dozen other places that you don’t believe might oust them. It should not simply be worried about the next election, but its very existence. It is almost impossible to overstate the difficulty it is in. The next election could be humiliating, neutering experience for the party - half the front bench wiped out, almost all the rising stars gone, a rump of the party left picking through the rubble.
Failure to be honest about this almost certainly guarantees it."
Unless RefUK overtake the Tories as the main party of the right no they don't need to worry about their existence under FPTP even if they fall to under 100 seats.
The pendulum will turn eventually as it always does. Indeed Labour fell to just 52 seats in 1931 but won a landslide victory 14 years later
According to Daniel Hannan in 2016, from the article below :
It’s 24 June, 2025, and Britain is marking its annual Independence Day celebration. As the fireworks stream through the summer sky, still not quite dark, we wonder why it took us so long to leave. The years that followed the 2016 referendum didn’t just reinvigorate our economy, our democracy and our liberty. They improved relations with our neighbours.
To be fair to Lord Dan Han, he was not alone in failing to predict Covid and the Ukraine War
Nonetheless that is quite painful reading now. The problem for Brexiteers (and I am one) is that everything bad is now being successfully blamed on Brexit, just as everything bad was once adroitly blamed on the EU by eurosceptics
What goes around comes around
I repeat my prediction that we will be back in the SM/CU (or as good as) by the end of Starmer's first term
If that requires free movement again though that leaves the red wall back open to the Tories again
The trouble for the Tories is that it looks very much like we have Free Movement under them, anyway. Last year saw 500,000 net inward migrants, a huge historic record, and of course they have utterly failed to get a grip on the Dinghy People, and seem incapable of doing so (Braverman rightly tells the Tories in the Telegraph today that unless they do stop the boats their electoral defeat will be certain and grim)
Labour can say: what's the big difference then, at least in the Single Market we can all live and work in the EU again, and oldies can go retire to Spain, and we will have young Spaniards back working at Costa and Pret
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Depends entirely on the economic situation under the likely Labour government and whether free movement of Romanians etc to the UK again reduces wages for the lower paid.
Governments normally lose elections, oppositions rarely win them. Even having changed to Starmer Labour was still well behind the Tories in summer 2021
Real wages increase under Labour; they stagnate under the Tories. Go figure.
UK gdp per capita was far higher in 1997 than 1979 and also amongst the highest in Western Europe compared to one of the lowest in Western Europe in 1979
What dont I get? The jobs market round here is incredibly strong, people clearly have money as discretionary spending seems to be growing and the M & E business I work for is going to have a record year.
I have read for the last year on here about the economic armegeddon about to hit. When is it going to happen?
I left school in 1984 when you either went to College or signed on, there are jobs for everyone now.
There is full employment, but very high cost of living increases which hit the lowest paid the hardest.
So you have a job but the rent, food and heating are killing you.
A question - do you know exactly how much you are spending on electricity each month, without having to look it up?
Half a million left the workforce before retirement age over the last couple of years. That's one thing which separates us from the rest of the developed world (except for the US, which saw something similar, but not on the same scale).
The thing is ... or one of the things is ... the tory party was the party of The Economy. It was their trump card over Labour.
What everyone now knows is that they blew it.
If Labour do align more with Europe, which god-knows we bloody need to, and the economy begins to respond as expected then it's going to introduce the astonishing meme that Labour are better for the British economy than the Conservatives.
Recovery from this will take at least one generation.
p.s. the blame for this lies predominantly with allowing the political ideologues, rather than the true economists, to take over control of the party and country. Brexit wasn't about the economy.
An eloquent and brutal summation of the Plight of the Tories. I cannot argue with a word of it
The conclusion gives a taste:
"If the party carries on as it is for the next eighteen months, it will lose. It will lose badly. It could lose as many as 300 of its seats. It could slip behind the SNP, or at least be less than half of the opposition. The party should not be worrying about the Red Wall, it is already lost, but Romford, Tatton, and a dozen other places that you don’t believe might oust them. It should not simply be worried about the next election, but its very existence. It is almost impossible to overstate the difficulty it is in. The next election could be humiliating, neutering experience for the party - half the front bench wiped out, almost all the rising stars gone, a rump of the party left picking through the rubble.
Failure to be honest about this almost certainly guarantees it."
Unless RefUK overtake the Tories as the main party of the right no they don't need to worry about their existence under FPTP even if they fall to under 100 seats.
The pendulum will turn eventually as it always does. Indeed Labour fell to just 52 seats in 1931 but won a landslide victory 14 years later
The Liberals fell to just 40 seats in 1924 but...
Oh.
They got overtaken as the party of the left, that was his point...
The thing is ... or one of the things is ... the tory party was the party of The Economy. It was their trump card over Labour.
What everyone now knows is that they blew it.
If Labour do align more with Europe, which god-knows we bloody need to, and the economy begins to respond as expected then it's going to introduce the astonishing meme that Labour are better for the British economy than the Conservatives.
Recovery from this will take at least one generation.
p.s. the blame for this lies predominantly with allowing the political ideologues, rather than the true economists, to take over control of the party and country. Brexit wasn't about the economy.
This is one of the downsides of an ageing population. You have an increasing proportion of voters with no direct stake in the economy. So you get voters more willing to risk economic harm in the name of some intangible benefit, knowing that they aren't likely to bear the costs if that harm materialises.
The thing is ... or one of the things is ... the tory party was the party of The Economy. It was their trump card over Labour.
What everyone now knows is that they blew it.
If Labour do align more with Europe, which god-knows we bloody need to, and the economy begins to respond as expected then it's going to introduce the astonishing meme that Labour are better for the British economy than the Conservatives.
Recovery from this will take at least one generation.
p.s. the blame for this lies predominantly with allowing the political ideologues, rather than the true economists, to take over control of the party and country. Brexit wasn't about the economy.
This is one of the downsides of an ageing population. You have an increasing proportion of voters with no direct stake in the economy. So you get voters more willing to risk economic harm in the name of some intangible benefit, knowing that they aren't likely to bear the costs if that harm materialises.
An eloquent and brutal summation of the Plight of the Tories. I cannot argue with a word of it
The conclusion gives a taste:
"If the party carries on as it is for the next eighteen months, it will lose. It will lose badly. It could lose as many as 300 of its seats. It could slip behind the SNP, or at least be less than half of the opposition. The party should not be worrying about the Red Wall, it is already lost, but Romford, Tatton, and a dozen other places that you don’t believe might oust them. It should not simply be worried about the next election, but its very existence. It is almost impossible to overstate the difficulty it is in. The next election could be humiliating, neutering experience for the party - half the front bench wiped out, almost all the rising stars gone, a rump of the party left picking through the rubble.
Failure to be honest about this almost certainly guarantees it."
Unless RefUK overtake the Tories as the main party of the right no they don't need to worry about their existence under FPTP even if they fall to under 100 seats.
The pendulum will turn eventually as it always does. Indeed Labour fell to just 52 seats in 1931 but won a landslide victory 14 years later
The Liberals fell to just 40 seats in 1924 but...
Oh.
They got overtaken as the party of the left, that was his point...
If Farage is up for it I could see the Tories getting overtaken by a hard right vehicle led by him, with the Lib Dems hoovering up the remaining votes from prosperous centrist Tories. Watching a bit of that interview with Polly Toynbee it struck me, as it has before, that he is far more plausible than most Tory politicians. All of them actually.
I'm sympathetic to those wanting pay increases in line with inflation. In particular, teaching ought to be a more highly valued profession. But:
- The only way for public sector workers to have more is for others to have less. The money for this has to be found somehow. It isn't cost free. And almost nobody in the private sector is getting pay increases in line with inflation. We're all getting poorer. Why should the public sector be insulated from this at the expense of private sector workers? - Giving money to strikers only encourages more strikes. It's like negotiating with terrorists. - In many cases they're not asking for pay increases in line with inflation; they're asking for pay increases way above inflation. Now maybe that's justified by the market, but it's a hard sell to a call centre worker who's lucky if he gets 5%. - Again, specifically on teachers, the NEU is a malign influence on children's education and anything that can be done to destroy it must be a good thing.
I would hope that most would consider equating strikers with terrorists is not an analogy that should be acceptable in this debate. People have an absolute right to strike and the whole essence of industrial action is compromise. In most industrial action It helps neither side if one or the other suffers an absolute win as it either leads to a collapse in the workforce or a collapse in the business. It is absolutely true that you can't negotiate/compromise with people whose aims are to destroy you. That does not apply to these strikes however much you might like to paint it that way.
You don't think the unions are trying to destroy the government?
Do you? This isn't the 60s and 70s. Whether you agree with them or not they are driven by more money and terms and conditions not toppling govts. I doubt there is a single nurse out there thinking of getting rid of the govt by their actions. They want more money. And not least because the govt will lose anyway, but not till they call an election which the strikers have no control over.
I do. Otherwise why would they be so vindictive towards ordinary working people who can't resolve their dispute other than at a general election?
You say -'Otherwise why would they be so vindictive towards other ordinary working people'.
What other action do you propose they take then other than striking or working to rule then? Honestly, be realistic.
And why do you think a general election will resolve the dispute? You are going around in a logical circle there. You assume it is political and therefore a general election may solve it, whereas it could just be they are striking for more money and it is as simple as that.
I have not seem a single statement from any union leader talking about anything else other than money and terms and conditions (unlike the 60s and 70s) yet you jump to a completely different conclusion.
I certainly don't support the rail strikes and I am sure the union leaders would like to see the govt fall, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is anything other than a campaign for money, terms and conditions and job protection even though I might not agree with their campaign.
You are rather cynical based upon no evidence whatsoever.
An eloquent and brutal summation of the Plight of the Tories. I cannot argue with a word of it
The conclusion gives a taste:
"If the party carries on as it is for the next eighteen months, it will lose. It will lose badly. It could lose as many as 300 of its seats. It could slip behind the SNP, or at least be less than half of the opposition. The party should not be worrying about the Red Wall, it is already lost, but Romford, Tatton, and a dozen other places that you don’t believe might oust them. It should not simply be worried about the next election, but its very existence. It is almost impossible to overstate the difficulty it is in. The next election could be humiliating, neutering experience for the party - half the front bench wiped out, almost all the rising stars gone, a rump of the party left picking through the rubble.
Failure to be honest about this almost certainly guarantees it."
Probably the less said about Romford the better, given what we know but can't say
Without saying anything, there's not much sign of any "we're not preparing for an election, perish the thought, but here's an update from your local Focus / In Touch / Herald Team" campaign going on.
Stuart, your man on the Romford Spot.
Labour won Romford in 1997 of course with Andrew Rosindell making one of the few Tory gains in 2001 to win back the seat.
Whatever you think of his brand of Conservatism (really not my cup of tea), from a technical point of view AR is a hard working and effective election winners.
He does... what he does... very well l, as Noel Coward said to Liberace.
What dont I get? The jobs market round here is incredibly strong, people clearly have money as discretionary spending seems to be growing and the M & E business I work for is going to have a record year.
I have read for the last year on here about the economic armegeddon about to hit. When is it going to happen?
I left school in 1984 when you either went to College or signed on, there are jobs for everyone now.
There is full employment, but very high cost of living increases which hit the lowest paid the hardest.
So you have a job but the rent, food and heating are killing you.
A question - do you know exactly how much you are spending on electricity each month, without having to look it up?
I do , its £62 usage, the Government put in £65 so I am not paying anything for electricity.
For gas , it depends how cold it is, last week I spent £42, this week will be a lot less as my heating will only be on for 2 hours per day.
An eloquent and brutal summation of the Plight of the Tories. I cannot argue with a word of it
The conclusion gives a taste:
"If the party carries on as it is for the next eighteen months, it will lose. It will lose badly. It could lose as many as 300 of its seats. It could slip behind the SNP, or at least be less than half of the opposition. The party should not be worrying about the Red Wall, it is already lost, but Romford, Tatton, and a dozen other places that you don’t believe might oust them. It should not simply be worried about the next election, but its very existence. It is almost impossible to overstate the difficulty it is in. The next election could be humiliating, neutering experience for the party - half the front bench wiped out, almost all the rising stars gone, a rump of the party left picking through the rubble.
Failure to be honest about this almost certainly guarantees it."
Unless RefUK overtake the Tories as the main party of the right no they don't need to worry about their existence under FPTP even if they fall to under 100 seats.
The pendulum will turn eventually as it always does. Indeed Labour fell to just 52 seats in 1931 but won a landslide victory 14 years later
The Liberals fell to just 40 seats in 1924 but...
Oh.
They got overtaken as the party of the left, that was his point...
If Farage is up for it I could see the Tories getting overtaken by a hard right vehicle led by him, with the Lib Dems hoovering up the remaining votes from prosperous centrist Tories. Watching a bit of that interview with Polly Toynbee it struck me, as it has before, that he is far more plausible than most Tory politicians. All of them actually.
Only maybe under PR, under FPTP as the Canadian right found from 1993 to 2003 a populist right party overtaking the main centre right party just splits their vote so eventually the Canadian Tories and Reform Party had to merge to form today's Conservative Party of Canada (which did win power again under Harper in 2006).
In France of course most traditional centre right voters voted for the liberal Macron and his party last year to keep out the far right Le Pen and far left Melenchon
The thing is ... or one of the things is ... the tory party was the party of The Economy. It was their trump card over Labour.
What everyone now knows is that they blew it.
If Labour do align more with Europe, which god-knows we bloody need to, and the economy begins to respond as expected then it's going to introduce the astonishing meme that Labour are better for the British economy than the Conservatives.
Recovery from this will take at least one generation.
p.s. the blame for this lies predominantly with allowing the political ideologues, rather than the true economists, to take over control of the party and country. Brexit wasn't about the economy.
This is one of the downsides of an ageing population. You have an increasing proportion of voters with no direct stake in the economy. So you get voters more willing to risk economic harm in the name of some intangible benefit, knowing that they aren't likely to bear the costs if that harm materialises.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
An eloquent and brutal summation of the Plight of the Tories. I cannot argue with a word of it
The conclusion gives a taste:
"If the party carries on as it is for the next eighteen months, it will lose. It will lose badly. It could lose as many as 300 of its seats. It could slip behind the SNP, or at least be less than half of the opposition. The party should not be worrying about the Red Wall, it is already lost, but Romford, Tatton, and a dozen other places that you don’t believe might oust them. It should not simply be worried about the next election, but its very existence. It is almost impossible to overstate the difficulty it is in. The next election could be humiliating, neutering experience for the party - half the front bench wiped out, almost all the rising stars gone, a rump of the party left picking through the rubble.
Failure to be honest about this almost certainly guarantees it."
Unless RefUK overtake the Tories as the main party of the right no they don't need to worry about their existence under FPTP even if they fall to under 100 seats.
The pendulum will turn eventually as it always does. Indeed Labour fell to just 52 seats in 1931 but won a landslide victory 14 years later
The Liberals fell to just 40 seats in 1924 but...
Oh.
They got overtaken as the party of the left, that was his point...
If Farage is up for it I could see the Tories getting overtaken by a hard right vehicle led by him, with the Lib Dems hoovering up the remaining votes from prosperous centrist Tories. Watching a bit of that interview with Polly Toynbee it struck me, as it has before, that he is far more plausible than most Tory politicians. All of them actually.
Only maybe under PR, under FPTP as the Canadian right found from 1993 to 2003 a populist right party overtaking the main centre right party just splits their vote so eventually the Canadian Tories and Reform Party had to merge to form today's Conservative Party of Canada (which did win power against under Harper).
In France of course most traditional centre right voters voted for the liberal Macron and his party last year to keep out the far right Le Pen and far left Melenchon
We seem to average about one major political realignment per century in Britain, so maybe we're due one.
An eloquent and brutal summation of the Plight of the Tories. I cannot argue with a word of it
The conclusion gives a taste:
"If the party carries on as it is for the next eighteen months, it will lose. It will lose badly. It could lose as many as 300 of its seats. It could slip behind the SNP, or at least be less than half of the opposition. The party should not be worrying about the Red Wall, it is already lost, but Romford, Tatton, and a dozen other places that you don’t believe might oust them. It should not simply be worried about the next election, but its very existence. It is almost impossible to overstate the difficulty it is in. The next election could be humiliating, neutering experience for the party - half the front bench wiped out, almost all the rising stars gone, a rump of the party left picking through the rubble.
Failure to be honest about this almost certainly guarantees it."
Unless RefUK overtake the Tories as the main party of the right no they don't need to worry about their existence under FPTP even if they fall to under 100 seats.
The pendulum will turn eventually as it always does. Indeed Labour fell to just 52 seats in 1931 but won a landslide victory 14 years later
The Liberals fell to just 40 seats in 1924 but...
Oh.
They got overtaken as the party of the left, that was his point...
If Farage is up for it I could see the Tories getting overtaken by a hard right vehicle led by him, with the Lib Dems hoovering up the remaining votes from prosperous centrist Tories. Watching a bit of that interview with Polly Toynbee it struck me, as it has before, that he is far more plausible than most Tory politicians. All of them actually.
Only maybe under PR, under FPTP as the Canadian right found from 1993 to 2003 a populist right party overtaking the main centre right party just splits their vote so eventually the Canadian Tories and Reform Party had to merge to form today's Conservative Party of Canada (which did win power against under Harper).
In France of course most traditional centre right voters voted for the liberal Macron and his party last year to keep out the far right Le Pen and far left Melenchon
Oh for sure it would be bad news for the right under FPTP. But why vote for an incompetent and dishonest Farage tribute act when the real thing is available?
France has signalled openness to sending fighter jets to Ukraine as western countries weigh the next steps in military assistance to help Kyiv resist Russian attacks.
“By definition, nothing is excluded,” President Emmanuel Macron said at a press conference in The Hague on Monday, adding that he had not received a request for jets from Ukraine.
Since the US and Germany announced last week their decision to send main battle tanks to Kyiv — something France has not yet done — Ukraine’s backers have turned their attention to the possibility of supplying US-made F-16 or other western fighter jets. Ukrainian officials have said more advanced aircraft would help bolster air defences, repel Russian attacks and prepare for a renewed offensive in the spring.
I'm sympathetic to those wanting pay increases in line with inflation. In particular, teaching ought to be a more highly valued profession. But:
- The only way for public sector workers to have more is for others to have less. The money for this has to be found somehow. It isn't cost free. And almost nobody in the private sector is getting pay increases in line with inflation. We're all getting poorer. Why should the public sector be insulated from this at the expense of private sector workers? - Giving money to strikers only encourages more strikes. It's like negotiating with terrorists. - In many cases they're not asking for pay increases in line with inflation; they're asking for pay increases way above inflation. Now maybe that's justified by the market, but it's a hard sell to a call centre worker who's lucky if he gets 5%. - Again, specifically on teachers, the NEU is a malign influence on children's education and anything that can be done to destroy it must be a good thing.
I would hope that most would consider equating strikers with terrorists is not an analogy that should be acceptable in this debate. People have an absolute right to strike and the whole essence of industrial action is compromise. In most industrial action It helps neither side if one or the other suffers an absolute win as it either leads to a collapse in the workforce or a collapse in the business. It is absolutely true that you can't negotiate/compromise with people whose aims are to destroy you. That does not apply to these strikes however much you might like to paint it that way.
You don't think the unions are trying to destroy the government?
Do you? This isn't the 60s and 70s. Whether you agree with them or not they are driven by more money and terms and conditions not toppling govts. I doubt there is a single nurse out there thinking of getting rid of the govt by their actions. They want more money. And not least because the govt will lose anyway, but not till they call an election which the strikers have no control over.
I do. Otherwise why would they be so vindictive towards ordinary working people who can't resolve their dispute other than at a general election?
You say -'Otherwise why would they be so vindictive towards other ordinary working people'.
What other action do you propose they take then other than striking or working to rule then? Honestly, be realistic.
And why do you think a general election will resolve the dispute? You are going around in a logical circle there. You assume it is political and therefore a general election may solve it, whereas it could just be they are striking for more money and it is as simple as that.
I have not seem a single statement from any union leader talking about anything else other than money and terms and conditions (unlike the 60s and 70s) yet you jump to a completely different conclusion.
I certainly don't support the rail strikes and I am sure the union leaders would like to see the govt fall, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is anything other than a campaign for money, terms and conditions and job protection even though I might not agree with their campaign.
You are rather cynical based upon no evidence whatsoever.
A general election would solve the dispute because Labour would have to fight it on the manifesto of "give the public sector workers their pay rises".
And whilst you call me cynical, I prefer the term "experienced".
What dont I get? The jobs market round here is incredibly strong, people clearly have money as discretionary spending seems to be growing and the M & E business I work for is going to have a record year.
I have read for the last year on here about the economic armegeddon about to hit. When is it going to happen?
I left school in 1984 when you either went to College or signed on, there are jobs for everyone now.
There is full employment, but very high cost of living increases which hit the lowest paid the hardest.
So you have a job but the rent, food and heating are killing you.
A question - do you know exactly how much you are spending on electricity each month, without having to look it up?
I do , its £62 usage, the Government put in £65 so I am not paying anything for electricity.
For gas , it depends how cold it is, last week I spent £42, this week will be a lot less as my heating will only be on for 2 hours per day.
I also am a hard faced man profiting from the bung.
Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Not at all, I'm just puzzled at your obsession with it.
Can we please dispense with this utter nonsense about "the unions are trying to bring down the government"?
The threshold for calling strike action these days is very high: turnout of at least 50%, with at least 40% of all eligible members in favour. Much more demanding than the threshold for forming a government under FPTP. In nearly all cases, the threshold has been surpassed overwhelmingly. Do people really think that union leaders have the power to make their members vote for something they don't want? Many of the teachers, nurses and others who've voted for industrial action were doubtless Tory voters (though whether they will be next time is doubtful).
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
My son and his football mates call a brutal and barely legal two footed tackle a "Brexit tackle", I think since it harks back to an earlier style of English football before it got tainted by a more fluid Continental style of play. It's not quite a pejorative usage but not far off.
Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Not at all, I'm just puzzled at your obsession with it.
I’m puzzled at your indifference to something that potentially could negatively affect over half the population and is a major political story.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
"He's made a right Brexit of that" does have a certain ring to it.
The problem for Nigel Fucking Farage is the same one the Tories and the SNP now have.
They are great at campaigning in poetry, but governing in prose is difficult, leads to all sorts of intractable problems, and ultimately upsets even your most fervent supporters.
Brexiteers talked a good gig, but the result is the inevitable shitshow.
Zoomers talk a good gig, but they dare not even speak about the reality they have wrought.
Farage's popularity ends the day he actually wins an election
What dont I get? The jobs market round here is incredibly strong, people clearly have money as discretionary spending seems to be growing and the M & E business I work for is going to have a record year.
I have read for the last year on here about the economic armegeddon about to hit. When is it going to happen?
I left school in 1984 when you either went to College or signed on, there are jobs for everyone now.
There is full employment, but very high cost of living increases which hit the lowest paid the hardest.
So you have a job but the rent, food and heating are killing you.
A question - do you know exactly how much you are spending on electricity each month, without having to look it up?
I do , its £62 usage, the Government put in £65 so I am not paying anything for electricity.
For gas , it depends how cold it is, last week I spent £42, this week will be a lot less as my heating will only be on for 2 hours per day.
I also am a hard faced man profiting from the bung.
The "bung" is why the high energy cost stuff from the IMF is lacking in correct detail. Most people are being very careful with their energy usage this winter and whilst there have been a couple of cold weeks it has mainly been a mild winter. I live in well insulated 2 bed semi and the direct cost to me of my energy usage this winter will be less than last year. Im sure there are lots of people like me.
Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Not at all, I'm just puzzled at your obsession with it.
I’m puzzled at your indifference to something that potentially could negatively affect over half the population and is a major political story.
Honestly, I am not indifferent to it, just more concerned at other issues like the trashing of the UK economy.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
More to the point, Leon told us the day after he voted for it, it would be a shitshow, and it is. A rare example of something he got right!
I wonder what the update is on his baby analogy? When the bastard lovechild of BoZo and Nigel Fucking Farage turns out to be the lead character in The Omen, what does he suggest now?
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
Just as Brexiteers were wholly wrong about how great Brexit was going to be, I am not convinced this is the worst Brexit could have been.
There's an obvious question that needs asking about this IMF story: how accurate are their predictions usually? How did their predictions of growth this far out match the reality as it happened?
Not sure that matters - on the ground and in peoples pockets, it feels like its right
Total anecdote, my local pub has had a record January, Im good mates with the landlord and he can't believe how busy the pub has been, so far takings are 30% up on last January. Its only a small pub and on Saturday he had 6 bar staff on, normaly in January he would have 3.
Another total anecdote, the number of M & E tenders that we have had for work this year is much higher that this point last year, Construction is going to have a very busy year.
Another total anecdote, the Miller & Carter restaurant near me (a very expensive vastly overrated steak joint) is booked up for weeks in advance.
It really does not feel like a recession round here
An anecdote on the flip side: Our local pub shut down straight after the New Year.
France has signalled openness to sending fighter jets to Ukraine as western countries weigh the next steps in military assistance to help Kyiv resist Russian attacks.
“By definition, nothing is excluded,” President Emmanuel Macron said at a press conference in The Hague on Monday, adding that he had not received a request for jets from Ukraine.
Baldy Ben will send the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight to Kulbakino before he lets France be first with combat aircraft to Ukraine.
What dont I get? The jobs market round here is incredibly strong, people clearly have money as discretionary spending seems to be growing and the M & E business I work for is going to have a record year.
I have read for the last year on here about the economic armegeddon about to hit. When is it going to happen?
I left school in 1984 when you either went to College or signed on, there are jobs for everyone now.
There is full employment, but very high cost of living increases which hit the lowest paid the hardest.
So you have a job but the rent, food and heating are killing you.
A question - do you know exactly how much you are spending on electricity each month, without having to look it up?
I do , its £62 usage, the Government put in £65 so I am not paying anything for electricity.
For gas , it depends how cold it is, last week I spent £42, this week will be a lot less as my heating will only be on for 2 hours per day.
I also am a hard faced man profiting from the bung.
The "bung" is why the high energy cost stuff from the IMF is lacking in correct detail. Most people are being very careful with their energy usage this winter and whilst there have been a couple of cold weeks it has mainly been a mild winter. I live in well insulated 2 bed semi and the direct cost to me of my energy usage this winter will be less than last year. Im sure there are lots of people like me.
You're perhaps making the mistake (common to all of us) of assuming that extrapolation from personal experience is a reliable guide to what's going on in the world.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
What dont I get? The jobs market round here is incredibly strong, people clearly have money as discretionary spending seems to be growing and the M & E business I work for is going to have a record year.
I have read for the last year on here about the economic armegeddon about to hit. When is it going to happen?
I left school in 1984 when you either went to College or signed on, there are jobs for everyone now.
There is full employment, but very high cost of living increases which hit the lowest paid the hardest.
So you have a job but the rent, food and heating are killing you.
A question - do you know exactly how much you are spending on electricity each month, without having to look it up?
I do , its £62 usage, the Government put in £65 so I am not paying anything for electricity.
For gas , it depends how cold it is, last week I spent £42, this week will be a lot less as my heating will only be on for 2 hours per day.
I also am a hard faced man profiting from the bung.
The "bung" is why the high energy cost stuff from the IMF is lacking in correct detail. Most people are being very careful with their energy usage this winter and whilst there have been a couple of cold weeks it has mainly been a mild winter. I live in well insulated 2 bed semi and the direct cost to me of my energy usage this winter will be less than last year. Im sure there are lots of people like me.
You're perhaps making the mistake (common to all of us) of assuming that extrapolation from personal experience is a reliable guide to what's going on in the world.
Maybe, but I can't imagine people are not been wary of how much energy they are using, and the type of house I live in must be one of the most common in the UK.
There's an obvious question that needs asking about this IMF story: how accurate are their predictions usually? How did their predictions of growth this far out match the reality as it happened?
Not sure that matters - on the ground and in peoples pockets, it feels like its right
Total anecdote, my local pub has had a record January, Im good mates with the landlord and he can't believe how busy the pub has been, so far takings are 30% up on last January. Its only a small pub and on Saturday he had 6 bar staff on, normaly in January he would have 3.
Another total anecdote, the number of M & E tenders that we have had for work this year is much higher that this point last year, Construction is going to have a very busy year.
Another total anecdote, the Miller & Carter restaurant near me (a very expensive vastly overrated steak joint) is booked up for weeks in advance.
It really does not feel like a recession round here
As a matter of interest, approximately where are you based?
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Of all the ballachingly tedious retorts to any criticism of 24/7 regurgitation on subject X, 'you're trying to shut down debate' is the most fatuous. The only time debate (such as it is) is shut down on here is when Vanilla goes tits up.
Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Not at all, I'm just puzzled at your obsession with it.
I’m puzzled at your indifference to something that potentially could negatively affect over half the population and is a major political story.
Half the population are not in womens' prisons. Also even if every trans person was a perv, that would be a massive 0.4% of the population.
Most women are far more likely to be assaulted, battered or murdered by sons, husbands, uncles, dads, etc. There is a reason the cops start with male family members in investigations. Something like 90% of assailants are known to the women who are attacked.
What dont I get? The jobs market round here is incredibly strong, people clearly have money as discretionary spending seems to be growing and the M & E business I work for is going to have a record year.
I have read for the last year on here about the economic armegeddon about to hit. When is it going to happen?
I left school in 1984 when you either went to College or signed on, there are jobs for everyone now.
There is full employment, but very high cost of living increases which hit the lowest paid the hardest.
So you have a job but the rent, food and heating are killing you.
A question - do you know exactly how much you are spending on electricity each month, without having to look it up?
I do , its £62 usage, the Government put in £65 so I am not paying anything for electricity.
For gas , it depends how cold it is, last week I spent £42, this week will be a lot less as my heating will only be on for 2 hours per day.
I also am a hard faced man profiting from the bung.
The "bung" is why the high energy cost stuff from the IMF is lacking in correct detail. Most people are being very careful with their energy usage this winter and whilst there have been a couple of cold weeks it has mainly been a mild winter. I live in well insulated 2 bed semi and the direct cost to me of my energy usage this winter will be less than last year. Im sure there are lots of people like me.
I'm sure there are, but there are probably many more whose houses aren't well insulated or in southern Hampshire.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
There's an obvious question that needs asking about this IMF story: how accurate are their predictions usually? How did their predictions of growth this far out match the reality as it happened?
Not sure that matters - on the ground and in peoples pockets, it feels like its right
Total anecdote, my local pub has had a record January, Im good mates with the landlord and he can't believe how busy the pub has been, so far takings are 30% up on last January. Its only a small pub and on Saturday he had 6 bar staff on, normaly in January he would have 3.
Another total anecdote, the number of M & E tenders that we have had for work this year is much higher that this point last year, Construction is going to have a very busy year.
Another total anecdote, the Miller & Carter restaurant near me (a very expensive vastly overrated steak joint) is booked up for weeks in advance.
It really does not feel like a recession round here
As a matter of interest, approximately where are you based?
There's an obvious question that needs asking about this IMF story: how accurate are their predictions usually? How did their predictions of growth this far out match the reality as it happened?
Not sure that matters - on the ground and in peoples pockets, it feels like its right
Total anecdote, my local pub has had a record January, Im good mates with the landlord and he can't believe how busy the pub has been, so far takings are 30% up on last January. Its only a small pub and on Saturday he had 6 bar staff on, normaly in January he would have 3.
Another total anecdote, the number of M & E tenders that we have had for work this year is much higher that this point last year, Construction is going to have a very busy year.
Another total anecdote, the Miller & Carter restaurant near me (a very expensive vastly overrated steak joint) is booked up for weeks in advance.
It really does not feel like a recession round here
As a matter of interest, approximately where are you based?
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
The twittersphere is enjoying an old article on how Brexit will be going by around now, from Sir Daniel Hannan, that is so off beam that it's made my week.
Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Not at all, I'm just puzzled at your obsession with it.
I’m puzzled at your indifference to something that potentially could negatively affect over half the population and is a major political story.
Honestly, I am not indifferent to it, just more concerned at other issues like the trashing of the UK economy.
Apologies if I offended.
None taken. Some on here seek to shut down debate because “No Debate” was a key part of getting such policies through by stealth.
Meanwhile, fearless champion of Trans rights:
Q - "Do you think trans people who are convicted of crimes like that (sex crimes) should be in women's jails?"
I can vouch for number 19. Great place. Maybe the only pub where the pub is in one country and the car park in another. Bridge between not for the faint of heart.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
The twittersphere is enjoying an old article on how Brexit will be going by around now, from Sir Daniel Hannan, that is so off beam that it's made my week.
Having read it I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Mind you Nerys will shortly be telling us it's pretty accurate as far as Eastleigh goes.
It is a marvel, isn't it. It's almost an achievement in how many areas wrong it is. I've no doubt that Daniel Hannan may be able to be charming company - that does sometimes across - but his political judgement is way off.
Listening to various vox pops it seems like most voters think this long march into penury is either the fault of three weeks of Truss or Brexit. As Rishi and his Cons are responsible for both it looks like they've run out of road.
Meanwhile the next train to Eastleigh leaves in twenty minutes.....
The refugees will be sailing across the Itchen from Bishopstoke as we speak!
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
It's a marvel, isn't it. It's almost an achievement in how many areas wrong it is. I've no doubt that Daniel Hannan may be able to be charming company - that does sometimes across - but his political judgement is way off.
Like all the Brexiteers, he says what he wants to be true, not what actually is
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
If it were possible to get Ukraine into NATO (which would require a change to the NATO constitution and 28 non-vetos) they would invoke Article 5 the next day. Then what?
The twittersphere is enjoying an old article on how Brexit will be going by around now, from Sir Daniel Hannan, that is so off beam that it's made my week.
Having read it I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Mind you Nerys will shortly be telling us it's pretty accurate as far as Eastleigh goes.
It's a marvel, isn't it. It's almost an achievement in how many areas wrong it is. I've no doubt that Daniel Hannan may be able to be charming company - that does sometimes across - but his political judgement is way off.
The poignant thing is that, in many ways, it's a lovely vision. Who could possibly not want that for a country? Who wouldn't be frustrated with people dragging their feet about making it happen?
It just hasn't turned out that way, and it's unlikely that it could have turned out that way. Hey ho.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
More to the point, Leon told us the day after he voted for it, it would be a shitshow, and it is. A rare example of something he got right!
In fairness to Leon on nearly every topic he has told us it will be great or rubbish, right or wrong, will win or will lose, etc, etc so it would be remarkable if he doesn't get 50% right.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
If it were possible to get Ukraine into NATO (which would require a change to the NATO constitution and 28 non-vetos) they would invoke Article 5 the next day. Then what?
The only change from the current situation is that NATO's credibility would depend on a Ukrainian victory:
Article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
An eloquent and brutal summation of the Plight of the Tories. I cannot argue with a word of it
The conclusion gives a taste:
"If the party carries on as it is for the next eighteen months, it will lose. It will lose badly. It could lose as many as 300 of its seats. It could slip behind the SNP, or at least be less than half of the opposition. The party should not be worrying about the Red Wall, it is already lost, but Romford, Tatton, and a dozen other places that you don’t believe might oust them. It should not simply be worried about the next election, but its very existence. It is almost impossible to overstate the difficulty it is in. The next election could be humiliating, neutering experience for the party - half the front bench wiped out, almost all the rising stars gone, a rump of the party left picking through the rubble.
Failure to be honest about this almost certainly guarantees it."
Probably the less said about Romford the better, given what we know but can't say
Without saying anything, there's not much sign of any "we're not preparing for an election, perish the thought, but here's an update from your local Focus / In Touch / Herald Team" campaign going on.
Stuart, your man on the Romford Spot.
Labour won Romford in 1997 of course with Andrew Rosindell making one of the few Tory gains in 2001 to win back the seat.
Something tells me you might have a new candidate there, next time.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
Risk of what? Putin has already invaded and we are already massively involved in helping them.
I think believing in Brexit should now be a certifiable disorder. There would have been much more money to help those communities without Brexit .
I have always considered believing in Brexit to be a neurosis that is similar to other ludicrous political beliefs such as socialism, or for that matter, that the NHS is something that is good for the average citizen and is or ever was "the envy of the world"
I wonder how few "likes" I get for that for managing to offend the politically gullible at both ends of the PB spectrum?
I think believing in Brexit should now be a certifiable disorder. There would have been much more money to help those communities without Brexit .
I have always considered believing in Brexit to be a neurosis that is similar to other ludicrous political beliefs such as socialism, or for that matter, that the NHS is something that is good for the average citizen and is or ever was "the envy of the world"
I wonder how few "likes" I get for that for managing to offend the politically gullible at both ends of the PB spectrum?
I think believing in Brexit should now be a certifiable disorder. There would have been much more money to help those communities without Brexit .
I have always considered believing in Brexit to be a neurosis that is similar to other ludicrous political beliefs such as socialism, or for that matter, that the NHS is something that is good for the average citizen and is or ever was "the envy of the world"
I wonder how few "likes" I get for that for managing to offend the politically gullible at both ends of the PB spectrum?
Brexit makes my business life inordinately easier than it would be if we were still in the EU.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
Risk of what? Putin has already invaded and we are already massively involved in helping them.
Well, not least and just to begin with, as Dura Ace says, Ukraine immediately invoking the self-defence provisions, and asking all others to join it , in direct confrontation with Russia.
What would be the point for Ukraine of joining and changing the situation, otherwise ?
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
If it were possible to get Ukraine into NATO (which would require a change to the NATO constitution and 28 non-vetos) they would invoke Article 5 the next day. Then what?
The only change from the current situation is that NATO's credibility would depend on a Ukrainian victory:
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO is likely a necessary condition for any peace agreement, as it's the only way to prevent a repeat.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
Risk of what? Putin has already invaded and we are already massively involved in helping them.
Well, not least, and just to begin with, as Dura Ace, Ukraine immediately invoking the self-defence provisions, and asking all others to join it , in direct confrontation with Russia.
Otherwise, what would be the point for Ukraine of joining ?
At the moment, the Kremlin can still hope that the West will eventually get tired of supporting Ukraine and abandon them. Admitting them to NATO would close off that hope and therefore hasten the end of the war.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
BoJo's analysis is basically correct (and caused tantrums in Berlin and Paris when he stated some of it out loud a few months ago, when he had been booted out of Govt), including about some European country leaderships being willing to sacrifice Ukraine on the altar of peace with Russia / their own future prosperity.
Those countries how now largely moved on. I'd say he's repeating himself now, minimising his personal downside and maximising his upside, for entirely personal (ie attention seeking) reasons.
However his 'start bringing them into NATO now' is smaller than it sounds and oversold. Membership can't be done as joining countries are required to have no disputes.
He's right to say 'whatever it takes' as for NATO that is about the future of the Eastern swathe of Europe.
My take is that we will end up with a new Iron Curtain this side of Russia, and perhaps this side of Belarus - and I don't see much of an alternative.
I'm sympathetic to those wanting pay increases in line with inflation. In particular, teaching ought to be a more highly valued profession. But:
- The only way for public sector workers to have more is for others to have less. The money for this has to be found somehow. It isn't cost free. And almost nobody in the private sector is getting pay increases in line with inflation. We're all getting poorer. Why should the public sector be insulated from this at the expense of private sector workers? - Giving money to strikers only encourages more strikes. It's like negotiating with terrorists. - In many cases they're not asking for pay increases in line with inflation; they're asking for pay increases way above inflation. Now maybe that's justified by the market, but it's a hard sell to a call centre worker who's lucky if he gets 5%. - Again, specifically on teachers, the NEU is a malign influence on children's education and anything that can be done to destroy it must be a good thing.
I would hope that most would consider equating strikers with terrorists is not an analogy that should be acceptable in this debate. People have an absolute right to strike and the whole essence of industrial action is compromise. In most industrial action It helps neither side if one or the other suffers an absolute win as it either leads to a collapse in the workforce or a collapse in the business. It is absolutely true that you can't negotiate/compromise with people whose aims are to destroy you. That does not apply to these strikes however much you might like to paint it that way.
You don't think the unions are trying to destroy the government?
Do you? This isn't the 60s and 70s. Whether you agree with them or not they are driven by more money and terms and conditions not toppling govts. I doubt there is a single nurse out there thinking of getting rid of the govt by their actions. They want more money. And not least because the govt will lose anyway, but not till they call an election which the strikers have no control over.
I do. Otherwise why would they be so vindictive towards ordinary working people who can't resolve their dispute other than at a general election?
You say -'Otherwise why would they be so vindictive towards other ordinary working people'.
What other action do you propose they take then other than striking or working to rule then? Honestly, be realistic.
And why do you think a general election will resolve the dispute? You are going around in a logical circle there. You assume it is political and therefore a general election may solve it, whereas it could just be they are striking for more money and it is as simple as that.
I have not seem a single statement from any union leader talking about anything else other than money and terms and conditions (unlike the 60s and 70s) yet you jump to a completely different conclusion.
I certainly don't support the rail strikes and I am sure the union leaders would like to see the govt fall, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is anything other than a campaign for money, terms and conditions and job protection even though I might not agree with their campaign.
You are rather cynical based upon no evidence whatsoever.
A general election would solve the dispute because Labour would have to fight it on the manifesto of "give the public sector workers their pay rises".
And whilst you call me cynical, I prefer the term "experienced".
Why would they? I would expect a Labour govt to give the nurses a better rise. I don't see them giving away money willy-nilly to everyone though, as it would be disastrous and they know it, and anyway nothing the rail unions or the nurses are doing are bringing the election any closer so what you say they are doing is pointless.
I mean have you heard a single nurse say that they are trying to bring the govt down? Nope not one. Or even a union leader?
No you are cynical. Re your comment on you being experienced - Being an old codger myself I expect I am more experienced than yourself, but I don't assume that because I have the experience of seeing mass strikes in the 60s and 70s that these are the same. Times change. Experience has to be combined with logic and evidence. There is zero evidence that these strikes are motivated by bringing down a govt, and masses of evidence they are driven by the cost of living.
Can we please dispense with this utter nonsense about "the unions are trying to bring down the government"?
The threshold for calling strike action these days is very high: turnout of at least 50%, with at least 40% of all eligible members in favour. Much more demanding than the threshold for forming a government under FPTP. In nearly all cases, the threshold has been surpassed overwhelmingly. Do people really think that union leaders have the power to make their members vote for something they don't want? Many of the teachers, nurses and others who've voted for industrial action were doubtless Tory voters (though whether they will be next time is doubtful).
Except that it is not "utter nonsense". I am sure that all union leaders would be delighted with that result and if they can assist in its expedition they will. And they are.
The unions always have been and always will be political institutions that are still wedded to outdated and utopian views of socialism. Their most vociferous activists and shop stewards are, like the membership of the Tory Party, largely made up of the most extreme examples of dinosaur thinking. They are like the semi-evaporated dregs of an old discarded cup of tea. They gave us Jeremy Corbyn, and a large amount of them would love to have someone of his views as PM of the country. In perpetuity.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
Risk of what? Putin has already invaded and we are already massively involved in helping them.
Well, not least, and just to begin with, as Dura Ace, Ukraine immediately invoking the self-defence provisions, and asking all others to join it , in direct confrontation with Russia.
Otherwise, what would be the point for Ukraine of joining ?
At the moment, the Kremlin can still hope that the West will eventually get tired of supporting Ukraine and abandon them. Admitting them to NATO would close off that hope and therefore hasten the end of the war.
It could do, but not necessarily in the way you're thinking of.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO is likely a necessary condition for any peace agreement, as it's the only way to prevent a repeat.
That's complex, but it would certainly be different from admitting Ukraine in the middle of a conflict.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
You realise that admitting Ukraine to NATO now wouldn't have to mean any boots on the ground from outside Ukraine? What it would do is destroy any hope in the Kremlin that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine.
Much too high risk, for too little comparative gain.
Risk of what? Putin has already invaded and we are already massively involved in helping them.
Well, not least, and just to begin with, as Dura Ace, Ukraine immediately invoking the self-defence provisions, and asking all others to join it , in direct confrontation with Russia.
Otherwise, what would be the point for Ukraine of joining ?
At the moment, the Kremlin can still hope that the West will eventually get tired of supporting Ukraine and abandon them. Admitting them to NATO would close off that hope and therefore hasten the end of the war.
It could do, but not necessarily in the way you're thinking of.
Please outline how it could lead to a swift Russian victory.
I think believing in Brexit should now be a certifiable disorder. There would have been much more money to help those communities without Brexit .
I have always considered believing in Brexit to be a neurosis that is similar to other ludicrous political beliefs such as socialism, or for that matter, that the NHS is something that is good for the average citizen and is or ever was "the envy of the world"
I wonder how few "likes" I get for that for managing to offend the politically gullible at both ends of the PB spectrum?
Brexit makes my business life inordinately easier than it would be if we were still in the EU.
Lol. There is always an exception. What is your business if I may ask?
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
I'm sympathetic to those wanting pay increases in line with inflation. In particular, teaching ought to be a more highly valued profession. But:
- The only way for public sector workers to have more is for others to have less. The money for this has to be found somehow. It isn't cost free. And almost nobody in the private sector is getting pay increases in line with inflation. We're all getting poorer. Why should the public sector be insulated from this at the expense of private sector workers? - Giving money to strikers only encourages more strikes. It's like negotiating with terrorists. - In many cases they're not asking for pay increases in line with inflation; they're asking for pay increases way above inflation. Now maybe that's justified by the market, but it's a hard sell to a call centre worker who's lucky if he gets 5%. - Again, specifically on teachers, the NEU is a malign influence on children's education and anything that can be done to destroy it must be a good thing.
I would hope that most would consider equating strikers with terrorists is not an analogy that should be acceptable in this debate. People have an absolute right to strike and the whole essence of industrial action is compromise. In most industrial action It helps neither side if one or the other suffers an absolute win as it either leads to a collapse in the workforce or a collapse in the business. It is absolutely true that you can't negotiate/compromise with people whose aims are to destroy you. That does not apply to these strikes however much you might like to paint it that way.
You don't think the unions are trying to destroy the government?
Do you? This isn't the 60s and 70s. Whether you agree with them or not they are driven by more money and terms and conditions not toppling govts. I doubt there is a single nurse out there thinking of getting rid of the govt by their actions. They want more money. And not least because the govt will lose anyway, but not till they call an election which the strikers have no control over.
I do. Otherwise why would they be so vindictive towards ordinary working people who can't resolve their dispute other than at a general election?
You say -'Otherwise why would they be so vindictive towards other ordinary working people'.
What other action do you propose they take then other than striking or working to rule then? Honestly, be realistic.
And why do you think a general election will resolve the dispute? You are going around in a logical circle there. You assume it is political and therefore a general election may solve it, whereas it could just be they are striking for more money and it is as simple as that.
I have not seem a single statement from any union leader talking about anything else other than money and terms and conditions (unlike the 60s and 70s) yet you jump to a completely different conclusion.
I certainly don't support the rail strikes and I am sure the union leaders would like to see the govt fall, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is anything other than a campaign for money, terms and conditions and job protection even though I might not agree with their campaign.
You are rather cynical based upon no evidence whatsoever.
A general election would solve the dispute because Labour would have to fight it on the manifesto of "give the public sector workers their pay rises".
And whilst you call me cynical, I prefer the term "experienced".
Why would they? I would expect a Labour govt to give the nurses a better rise. I don't see them giving away money willy-nilly to everyone though, as it would be disastrous and they know it, and anyway nothing the rail unions or the nurses are doing are bringing the election any closer so what you say they are doing is pointless.
I mean have you heard a single nurse say that they are trying to bring the govt down? Nope not one. Or even a union leader?
No you are cynical. Being an old codger I expect I am more experienced than yourself, but I don't assume that because I have the experience of seeing mass strikes in the 60s and 70s that these are the same. Times change. Experience has to be combined with logic and evidence. There is zero evidence that these strikes are motivated by bringing down a govt, and masses of evidence they are driven by the cost of living.
Of course. The country is poorer thanks to a surge in energy prices and borrowing costs on historically high debts. Strikes by public sector workers are just an attempt not to be 8/9% poorer rather than 2/3% poorer.
High inflation always means those with the least bargaining power suffer disproportionally. Striking is simply a form of bargaining resorted to when other means fail.
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
Idiotic as usual.
Where do you disagree with him here?
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO now would be madness. There was a case for admitting Ukraine before the war, but it's also balanced out by the fact that Cheney's speeches about NATO expansion in this direction in 2008 also marked the exact moment of Putin's turn to ultra-authoritarianism at home, and when he began meddling in Ukraine even more.
Admitting Ukraine to NATO is likely a necessary condition for any peace agreement, as it's the only way to prevent a repeat.
That's complex, but it would certainly be different from admitting Ukraine in the middle of a conflict.
Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Not at all, I'm just puzzled at your obsession with it.
I’m puzzled at your indifference to something that potentially could negatively affect over half the population and is a major political story.
Honestly, I am not indifferent to it, just more concerned at other issues like the trashing of the UK economy.
Apologies if I offended.
None taken. Some on here seek to shut down debate because “No Debate” was a key part of getting such policies through by stealth.
Meanwhile, fearless champion of Trans rights:
Q - "Do you think trans people who are convicted of crimes like that (sex crimes) should be in women's jails?"
Good grief Carlotta, don't you get bored of posting endlessly on this issue?
Why? It’s a significant scandal in Scotland and at the root of a major row between Westminster and Holyrood. You’re not trying to shut down debate, surely?
Not at all, I'm just puzzled at your obsession with it.
I’m puzzled at your indifference to something that potentially could negatively affect over half the population and is a major political story.
Honestly, I am not indifferent to it, just more concerned at other issues like the trashing of the UK economy.
Apologies if I offended.
None taken. Some on here seek to shut down debate because “No Debate” was a key part of getting such policies through by stealth.
Meanwhile, fearless champion of Trans rights:
Q - "Do you think trans people who are convicted of crimes like that (sex crimes) should be in women's jails?"
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
This of course is the Brexit as socialism view. Brexit is pure and wonderful just that it hasn't been tried properly yet.
So the logical conclusion of your claim is that May, Johnson and Truss were top notch politicians and leaders who made no mistakes, created the best possible Brexit and were only bought low by the project rather than by their own incompetence and ineptitude? Its a 'courageous' theory at least.
I think rather that your ideal Brexit (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) was always impossible.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
Can we please dispense with this utter nonsense about "the unions are trying to bring down the government"?
The threshold for calling strike action these days is very high: turnout of at least 50%, with at least 40% of all eligible members in favour. Much more demanding than the threshold for forming a government under FPTP. In nearly all cases, the threshold has been surpassed overwhelmingly. Do people really think that union leaders have the power to make their members vote for something they don't want? Many of the teachers, nurses and others who've voted for industrial action were doubtless Tory voters (though whether they will be next time is doubtful).
Except that it is not "utter nonsense". I am sure that all union leaders would be delighted with that result and if they can assist in its expedition they will. And they are.
The unions always have been and always will be political institutions that are still wedded to outdated and utopian views of socialism. Their most vociferous activists and shop stewards are, like the membership of the Tory Party, largely made up of the most extreme examples of dinosaur thinking. They are like the semi-evaporated dregs of an old discarded cup of tea. They gave us Jeremy Corbyn, and a large amount of them would love to have someone of his views as PM of the country. In perpetuity.
I don’t think that is right at all. Unions should have a place in any economy as a corrective to the disproportionate power of capital. The alternative is the liberal enforcement of individual rights, employment tribunals etc, which are only effective to a limited extent. Largely because you have to pay people like me to present your case in an increasingly complex labour law environment.
Of course there are unions with your “outdated and utopian” views of socialism but there are many more pragmatic and centrist examples. Unions only make the news when they go on strike and, as an employment law practitioner of more than 20 years, that’s not often. The current circumstances are a once in a generation occurrence - literally.
I sense it will be sellable, the tide against Brexit is one way and it is powerful. You can feel it
The Tories have blown it. Blown Brexit
Not at all.
This version of Brexit is plausibly the best version there ever could be.
We told you before you voted for it, it would be a shitshow.
And now here we are...
Clearly bollocks from you as even most Remainers admit.
Richard is right. I bow to nobody in my loathing for Brexit and its proponents.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
Comments
And it is certainly true that if you want to control immigration, Brexit is a necessary condition. But it is not sufficient by itself: in order to control immigration, the British state has to want to control immigration, and it clearly does not, whatever certain politicians might favour. The British state still either believes, or is most responsive to belief, that keeping out immigrants is a bad thing morally (and probably also economically).
The Liberals fell to just 40 seats in 1924 but...
Oh.
That's one thing which separates us from the rest of the developed world (except for the US, which saw something similar, but not on the same scale).
What everyone now knows is that they blew it.
If Labour do align more with Europe, which god-knows we bloody need to, and the economy begins to respond as expected then it's going to introduce the astonishing meme that Labour are better for the British economy than the Conservatives.
Recovery from this will take at least one generation.
p.s. the blame for this lies predominantly with allowing the political ideologues, rather than the true economists, to take over control of the party and country. Brexit wasn't about the economy.
To compensate for these losses, Ukraine has received 450 MBTs from NATO and is set to receive at least 100 more. Ukraine has also captured* 546 MBTs.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1620340632303865858
*Also visually confirmed.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1620354050968502273
What other action do you propose they take then other than striking or working to rule then? Honestly, be realistic.
And why do you think a general election will resolve the dispute? You are going around in a logical circle there. You assume it is political and therefore a general election may solve it, whereas it could just be they are striking for more money and it is as simple as that.
I have not seem a single statement from any union leader talking about anything else other than money and terms and conditions (unlike the 60s and 70s) yet you jump to a completely different conclusion.
I certainly don't support the rail strikes and I am sure the union leaders would like to see the govt fall, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is anything other than a campaign for money, terms and conditions and job protection even though I might not agree with their campaign.
You are rather cynical based upon no evidence whatsoever.
He does... what he does... very well l, as Noel Coward said to Liberace.
For gas , it depends how cold it is, last week I spent £42, this week will be a lot less as my heating will only be on for 2 hours per day.
In France of course most traditional centre right voters voted for the liberal Macron and his party last year to keep out the far right Le Pen and far left Melenchon
This is a good thing.
I still gnash my teeth when I remember how Gisela Stuart dissembled in the televised pre referendum debate about the effect on Northern Ireland.
But the truth is we have had a lowest decile Brexit. Pretty much everything that could go wrong for the Brexiteers has gone wrong - no US FTA, Trump lost to Biden, the EU played hardball (talking about Swexit and Italexit during negotiations was an own goal by Farage).
There have been almost no economic benefits from Brexit to talk about - and our post-Brexit trade deals under Truss were to our disadvantage.
Even the political mood music - continued political confrontation with the Citizens of Nowhere as part of a misguided Red Wall strategy - was ill chosen.
None of this was certain in 2016.
The worst thing is that I feel deep sympathy for committed Brexiteers. To work for something for decades and to see it mishandled so grievously must be really upsetting.
I hear kids in primary schools are now using Brexit as shorthand for screwed up. Not good.
And .ore widely - not good for the country. A period of competent administration is desperately needed.
The use of "continue" is particularly good.
Sunak marks Brexit anniversary by claiming benefits will ‘continue to empower communities’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/jan/31/rishi-sunak-brexit-conservatives-uk-politics-latest
“By definition, nothing is excluded,” President Emmanuel Macron said at a press conference in The Hague on Monday, adding that he had not received a request for jets from Ukraine.
Since the US and Germany announced last week their decision to send main battle tanks to Kyiv — something France has not yet done — Ukraine’s backers have turned their attention to the possibility of supplying US-made F-16 or other western fighter jets. Ukrainian officials have said more advanced aircraft would help bolster air defences, repel Russian attacks and prepare for a renewed offensive in the spring.
https://www.ft.com/content/4678ec97-bdff-4dfa-9507-dd6f6cb3dcc4
And whilst you call me cynical, I prefer the term "experienced".
THE FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD
Mmmm…… bop!!
The threshold for calling strike action these days is very high: turnout of at least 50%, with at least 40% of all eligible members in favour. Much more demanding than the threshold for forming a government under FPTP. In nearly all cases, the threshold has been surpassed overwhelmingly. Do people really think that union leaders have the power to make their members vote for something they don't want? Many of the teachers, nurses and others who've voted for industrial action were doubtless Tory voters (though whether they will be next time is doubtful).
They are great at campaigning in poetry, but governing in prose is difficult, leads to all sorts of intractable problems, and ultimately upsets even your most fervent supporters.
Brexiteers talked a good gig, but the result is the inevitable shitshow.
Zoomers talk a good gig, but they dare not even speak about the reality they have wrought.
Farage's popularity ends the day he actually wins an election
Apologies if I offended.
Putin has paved the way for Ukrainian membership of NATO
Read my op ed for the Washington Post
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1620174565992439812
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/boris-johnson-putin-nato-ukraine/
Well, we tried creative ambiguity, and see where it got us. For decades, we have used diplomatic doublespeak on the subject of NATO and Ukraine — and it has ended in total disaster.
We spent years telling Ukrainians that we have an “open door” policy in NATO, and that they have the right to “choose their own destiny,” and that Russia should not be able to exercise a veto.
And all that time we have overtly signaled to Moscow that Ukraine is never going to join the alliance — because so many NATO members will simply exercise their veto themselves.
In principle, yes; in practice, no. That has been the message.
And what is the result of all this sucking and blowing at once? What have we achieved by speaking softly out of both sides of our mouths?
The result is the worst war in Europe for 80 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has destroyed countless lives, homes, hopes and dreams. He has also destroyed the slightest reason to sympathize with him or to humor him in his paranoia.
Along the way, he has vaporized the case against Ukrainian membership of NATO.
My local is the 9th best pub in Britain apparently.
https://www.timeout.com/uk/food-and-drink/best-pubs-in-the-uk
The only time debate (such as it is) is shut down on here is when Vanilla goes tits up.
Most women are far more likely to be assaulted, battered or murdered by sons, husbands, uncles, dads, etc. There is a reason the cops start with male family members in investigations. Something like 90% of assailants are known to the women who are attacked.
Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win.
If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted.
I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable.
For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter.
Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now.
It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.
Meanwhile, fearless champion of Trans rights:
Q - "Do you think trans people who are convicted of crimes like that (sex crimes) should be in women's jails?"
SNP MP Alyn Smith: "I've nothing to say on that"
https://twitter.com/chrismusson/status/1620356383521804291
The women’s prison is in his constituency
It just hasn't turned out that way, and it's unlikely that it could have turned out that way. Hey ho.
Without Brexit Russia may not have invaded Ukraine, says former chief negotiator Guy Verhofstdat
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1620367139621199874
And “Brexit Britain” has been among the most robust supporters of Ukraine.
Article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
I wonder how few "likes" I get for that for managing to offend the politically gullible at both ends of the PB spectrum?
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/unions-cant-keep-striking-burning-through-cash/
What would be the point for Ukraine of joining and changing the situation, otherwise ?
Those countries how now largely moved on. I'd say he's repeating himself now, minimising his personal downside and maximising his upside, for entirely personal (ie attention seeking) reasons.
However his 'start bringing them into NATO now' is smaller than it sounds and oversold. Membership can't be done as joining countries are required to have no disputes.
He's right to say 'whatever it takes' as for NATO that is about the future of the Eastern swathe of Europe.
My take is that we will end up with a new Iron Curtain this side of Russia, and perhaps this side of Belarus - and I don't see much of an alternative.
I mean have you heard a single nurse say that they are trying to bring the govt down? Nope not one. Or even a union leader?
No you are cynical. Re your comment on you being experienced - Being an old codger myself I expect I am more experienced than yourself, but I don't assume that because I have the experience of seeing mass strikes in the 60s and 70s that these are the same. Times change. Experience has to be combined with logic and evidence. There is zero evidence that these strikes are motivated by bringing down a govt, and masses of evidence they are driven by the cost of living.
The unions always have been and always will be political institutions that are still wedded to outdated and utopian views of socialism. Their most vociferous activists and shop stewards are, like the membership of the Tory Party, largely made up of the most extreme examples of dinosaur thinking. They are like the semi-evaporated dregs of an old discarded cup of tea. They gave us Jeremy Corbyn, and a large amount of them would love to have someone of his views as PM of the country. In perpetuity.
The country is poorer thanks to a surge in energy prices and borrowing costs on historically high debts.
Strikes by public sector workers are just an attempt not to be 8/9% poorer rather than 2/3% poorer.
High inflation always means those with the least bargaining power suffer disproportionally.
Striking is simply a form of bargaining resorted to when other means fail.
And rightly failed.
Note that many of those arguing it hasn't been done properly are implacably opposed to what you would want.
Of course there are unions with your “outdated and utopian” views of socialism but there are many more pragmatic and centrist examples. Unions only make the news when they go on strike and, as an employment law practitioner of more than 20 years, that’s not often. The current circumstances are a once in a generation occurrence - literally.